To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

>7
Effect of draft ruling unclear, counselor
The recent Supreme Court decision, broadening the grounds for conscientious objectors, most likely will not be responded to immediately by local draft boards, a member of the USC Draft Counseling Center said.
The Supreme Court’s decision, as reported through the news media, said men opposed to the war because of deeply held moral or ethical beliefs are entitled to conscientious objector draft exemption the same as those opposed to war on religious grounds. The ruling was handed down in a case brought to the court by Elliot Welsh II.
Steve Wall, one of the draft counselors, emphasized that he had not yet read Justice Hugo Black’s decision, but agreed to talk about the prospective im* pacts of the decision .
“It is my opinion that local boards will be slow in responding to the Supreme Court ruling, that it will confuse them and that an immediate change in their attitudes toward conscientious objectors is unlikely,” Wall said.
To this he added both a word of hope and one of caution
“I really feel confident that the status of conscientious objector has been opened up to a significantly larger group of people.
“The Supreme Court ruling should mean that a reliance on religious statements or ethical philosophy is no longer essential to obtaining a conscientious ob-
jector status. This means that the emphasis may be on a registrant’s personal moral beliefs rather than a religion or philosophy or anything akin to a religion or philosophy. If this is the ruling, then it is a significant change.
“As a caution, any registrant should recognize the fact that the people making up the draft boards will be very conservative people who will sometimes react favorably to orthodox faiths and religions, but who have no understanding of unorthodox faiths.”
Wall said it appears there may be some contradiction between the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Welsh case and the guidelines issued by Curtis Tarr, selective service director, that will be used by local draft boards in determining conscientious objector status. Again Wall emphasized that he has not yet received or read a complete copy of Tarr’s policy.
“Apparently the Supreme Court has said a conscientious objector no longer has to base his claim on the fact that he is opposed to warfare in all forms because of a religious training or belief or something akin to a religious training or belief,” Wall said.
“You still have to be opposed to warfare in any form but from my understanding, not having read Black’s opinion, an individual’s personal moral convictions should be sufficient to obtain a conscientious objector deferment.
“Now in contradiction to this statement of the Supreme Court, -the Selective Service, under Tarr, has
said that the Selective Service policy will be that an individual’s personal moral belief is not sufficient to get a conscientious objector deferment.”
One of Tarr’s guidelines said: “The belief must be more than the result of a personal moral code. (The man) needs to have taken into account the thoughts of other wise men. He needs to consult some kind of system of belief beyond his own personal interests, wishes or ideas.
Another guideline Tarr set up was that an applicant’s “belief” must be the result of some kind of rigorous training.”
“If that is what Tarr has said, it is not very different from the rule that has been in effect since the Seeger case in 1965,” Wall said.
The Seeger case held that conscientious objectors did not have to follow a conventional faith to satisfy the law’s requirement that their opposition be based on a religious training or belief.
“I think if that is the position of the Selective Service, it will be in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Welsh case,” Wall said. “If it is really clear that the draft board regulations are in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling, the battle will have to be settled in the courts, which could take a lengthy period of time.”
Althought opinion have been expressed that so many (Continued on page 4)
Topping approves policy on dissent
An official policy on dissent has been approved and will be incorporated into the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
The policy defends students’ and student organizations’ right to freely examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to support causes by all orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation and activities of the university.
The policy is the result of meetings held last October by a subcommittee of the Student Activities Committee, composed of both students and faculty members. Open hearings were held in order to obtain as many viewpoints and suggestions as possible.
The completed policy and the guidelines which accompany It, approved by President Norman Topping in May, follow below. The statement has also been endorsed by the University Senate, the ASSC and the Student Activities Committee.
POLICY STATEMENT
Dissent defined as disagreement, a difference of opinion, or thinking differently from others, is an integral aspect of higher education whether it manifests itself in a new and differing theory in quantum mechanics or a personal disagreement with a current foreign policy.
“The university must be an optimal learning environment and all members of the university community have a responsibility to provide and maintain an atmosphere of free inquiry and expression. This atmosphere must be protected by policies and procedures develbped by the university.” (1)
The university is a fragile instrument, devoted to the use of reason and thought in the resolution of its many problems, and must rely on self-restraint and self-discipline if it is to retain its freedom to search and question.
This freedom, however, is not self-sustaining. It must, as stated above, protect itself from attacks mounted by extremists of whatever persuasion who would negate this essential freedom of inquiry through coercive and disruptive actions which interfere with those rights and freedoms which are essential to the academic community. It is when self-restraint and self-discipline fail that it may be necessary to resort to outside authority.
This position is clearly enunciated in the Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities as follows:
“Students and student organizations shall be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinion publicly and privately. They shall be free to support causes by all orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation and activities of the university since such disruption violates the responsible exercise of free (Continued on page 4)
Trojans win 2-1 in 15th
It took over three hours, but the Trojan baseball team held on and won the National Collegiate Athletics Association championship by beating Florida State University 2-1 in 15 innings.
Las; night marked the sixth time in 22 years that USC has taken the championship. The last time was in 1958.
In the bottom of the 15th, Mack Scarce, FSU’s pitcher, w'alked Cal Myer. Scarce was taken out of the ball game at that point because he had developed a blister on his hand. Carl Gromek took over.
Gromek walked the next batter, Stan Stoligrosz. Dave Kingman, up next, bunted a single, loading the bases. Then Frank Alfano came to bat and hit a dribbler between third base and the pitcher. Gromek fielded the ball but not in time to stop Myer from crossing home plate.
Jim Barr was the winning pitcher, ending the season with a 14-2 record. The tallies for the Trojans were two runs, nine hits and one error. For Florida State, it was one run, seven hits and two errors.
The champion Trojans were coached by Rod Dedeaux.
University of Southern California
SUMMER
TROJAN
VOL. LXII, NO. 2
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1970
USC SPORTS CLUB
Coaches to instruct children
By CATHEJEAN McGILLIN
Neighborhood children will spend the next six weeks learning the techniques of the major sports from athletes and coaches as part of the annual summer USC Sports Club.
Children, ages 10 to 15, participate in various activities for approximately two hours each day, Monday through Thursday. They are involved with at least three sports daily, sometimes learning techniques and sometimes competing. Children, ages 10 to 12 meet between 11:30 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. and those between 13 and 15 meet from 2:30 to 5:15 p.m.
The first day they meet, the students are divided into groups of approximately 15 each. One staff member is assigned to each group. The groups remain with each other throughout the session. During competitive times, the groups serve as teams.
“Former Vice-President Mul-vey White and Dr. Topping played a vital role in the initiation of this program at our university,” Jim Dennis, director of the Sports Club, said. “We like to feel that we contributed to its widespread acceptance nationally.”
When the federal government began to sponsor this program in conjunction with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, it adopted USC’s format, Dennis said.
After a number of days of practice, the various teams compete against one another. Boys compete against boys and girls against girls. Points are kept throughout the session and at the conclusion, the individual team members of the winning teams each receive a trophy.
In the past, the sports which were most popular were basketball and football among the boys and track and field among the girls.
At the conclusion of the session, an awards picnic is held,
during which the trophies are presented. Each child who participated in the session also receives a certificate of achievement.
Besides the sports activities, the children will have a chance to participate in candy hunts, pie eating contests, and recreational swimming.
They will also see movies from time to time, which serve as supplements to their sports instruction. In addition, the children will hear people from the community talk on drugs or police-community relations. Dan Smith is in charge of this aspect of the session, termed educational components.
The day begins for each of the age groups when they meet on Bovard Field and then go to lunch. The children have either a box lunch or they eat /-\
\ \
/ / /
V \ V / \ / -\
\ / \ Jr \ \
V / /
V \ / t \ / V
/\ \ V /
/ /
\ y \ \ . \
in the Commons Restaurant, ground floor. The rest of their time is spent with games, sports instruction, educational components and competition.
Each participant must have his parents’ consent slip on file with the university. In addition, a record of a recent physical examination must be presented. For those who are unable to provide for a physical, the Student Health Center will perform them.
The size of the program has continued to grow since it was first introduced three years ago. The first year, approximately 200 neighborhood children participated. Last year there were about 350 and this year 400 are expected. More than 100 universities throughout the United States conduct similar programs each summer.
\ /\
' V V V . •I-J^.-I^.-
SELECTING BEST BAT
Children will learn techniques of major sports.

>7
Effect of draft ruling unclear, counselor
The recent Supreme Court decision, broadening the grounds for conscientious objectors, most likely will not be responded to immediately by local draft boards, a member of the USC Draft Counseling Center said.
The Supreme Court’s decision, as reported through the news media, said men opposed to the war because of deeply held moral or ethical beliefs are entitled to conscientious objector draft exemption the same as those opposed to war on religious grounds. The ruling was handed down in a case brought to the court by Elliot Welsh II.
Steve Wall, one of the draft counselors, emphasized that he had not yet read Justice Hugo Black’s decision, but agreed to talk about the prospective im* pacts of the decision .
“It is my opinion that local boards will be slow in responding to the Supreme Court ruling, that it will confuse them and that an immediate change in their attitudes toward conscientious objectors is unlikely,” Wall said.
To this he added both a word of hope and one of caution
“I really feel confident that the status of conscientious objector has been opened up to a significantly larger group of people.
“The Supreme Court ruling should mean that a reliance on religious statements or ethical philosophy is no longer essential to obtaining a conscientious ob-
jector status. This means that the emphasis may be on a registrant’s personal moral beliefs rather than a religion or philosophy or anything akin to a religion or philosophy. If this is the ruling, then it is a significant change.
“As a caution, any registrant should recognize the fact that the people making up the draft boards will be very conservative people who will sometimes react favorably to orthodox faiths and religions, but who have no understanding of unorthodox faiths.”
Wall said it appears there may be some contradiction between the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Welsh case and the guidelines issued by Curtis Tarr, selective service director, that will be used by local draft boards in determining conscientious objector status. Again Wall emphasized that he has not yet received or read a complete copy of Tarr’s policy.
“Apparently the Supreme Court has said a conscientious objector no longer has to base his claim on the fact that he is opposed to warfare in all forms because of a religious training or belief or something akin to a religious training or belief,” Wall said.
“You still have to be opposed to warfare in any form but from my understanding, not having read Black’s opinion, an individual’s personal moral convictions should be sufficient to obtain a conscientious objector deferment.
“Now in contradiction to this statement of the Supreme Court, -the Selective Service, under Tarr, has
said that the Selective Service policy will be that an individual’s personal moral belief is not sufficient to get a conscientious objector deferment.”
One of Tarr’s guidelines said: “The belief must be more than the result of a personal moral code. (The man) needs to have taken into account the thoughts of other wise men. He needs to consult some kind of system of belief beyond his own personal interests, wishes or ideas.
Another guideline Tarr set up was that an applicant’s “belief” must be the result of some kind of rigorous training.”
“If that is what Tarr has said, it is not very different from the rule that has been in effect since the Seeger case in 1965,” Wall said.
The Seeger case held that conscientious objectors did not have to follow a conventional faith to satisfy the law’s requirement that their opposition be based on a religious training or belief.
“I think if that is the position of the Selective Service, it will be in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Welsh case,” Wall said. “If it is really clear that the draft board regulations are in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling, the battle will have to be settled in the courts, which could take a lengthy period of time.”
Althought opinion have been expressed that so many (Continued on page 4)
Topping approves policy on dissent
An official policy on dissent has been approved and will be incorporated into the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
The policy defends students’ and student organizations’ right to freely examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to support causes by all orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation and activities of the university.
The policy is the result of meetings held last October by a subcommittee of the Student Activities Committee, composed of both students and faculty members. Open hearings were held in order to obtain as many viewpoints and suggestions as possible.
The completed policy and the guidelines which accompany It, approved by President Norman Topping in May, follow below. The statement has also been endorsed by the University Senate, the ASSC and the Student Activities Committee.
POLICY STATEMENT
Dissent defined as disagreement, a difference of opinion, or thinking differently from others, is an integral aspect of higher education whether it manifests itself in a new and differing theory in quantum mechanics or a personal disagreement with a current foreign policy.
“The university must be an optimal learning environment and all members of the university community have a responsibility to provide and maintain an atmosphere of free inquiry and expression. This atmosphere must be protected by policies and procedures develbped by the university.” (1)
The university is a fragile instrument, devoted to the use of reason and thought in the resolution of its many problems, and must rely on self-restraint and self-discipline if it is to retain its freedom to search and question.
This freedom, however, is not self-sustaining. It must, as stated above, protect itself from attacks mounted by extremists of whatever persuasion who would negate this essential freedom of inquiry through coercive and disruptive actions which interfere with those rights and freedoms which are essential to the academic community. It is when self-restraint and self-discipline fail that it may be necessary to resort to outside authority.
This position is clearly enunciated in the Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities as follows:
“Students and student organizations shall be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinion publicly and privately. They shall be free to support causes by all orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation and activities of the university since such disruption violates the responsible exercise of free (Continued on page 4)
Trojans win 2-1 in 15th
It took over three hours, but the Trojan baseball team held on and won the National Collegiate Athletics Association championship by beating Florida State University 2-1 in 15 innings.
Las; night marked the sixth time in 22 years that USC has taken the championship. The last time was in 1958.
In the bottom of the 15th, Mack Scarce, FSU’s pitcher, w'alked Cal Myer. Scarce was taken out of the ball game at that point because he had developed a blister on his hand. Carl Gromek took over.
Gromek walked the next batter, Stan Stoligrosz. Dave Kingman, up next, bunted a single, loading the bases. Then Frank Alfano came to bat and hit a dribbler between third base and the pitcher. Gromek fielded the ball but not in time to stop Myer from crossing home plate.
Jim Barr was the winning pitcher, ending the season with a 14-2 record. The tallies for the Trojans were two runs, nine hits and one error. For Florida State, it was one run, seven hits and two errors.
The champion Trojans were coached by Rod Dedeaux.
University of Southern California
SUMMER
TROJAN
VOL. LXII, NO. 2
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1970
USC SPORTS CLUB
Coaches to instruct children
By CATHEJEAN McGILLIN
Neighborhood children will spend the next six weeks learning the techniques of the major sports from athletes and coaches as part of the annual summer USC Sports Club.
Children, ages 10 to 15, participate in various activities for approximately two hours each day, Monday through Thursday. They are involved with at least three sports daily, sometimes learning techniques and sometimes competing. Children, ages 10 to 12 meet between 11:30 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. and those between 13 and 15 meet from 2:30 to 5:15 p.m.
The first day they meet, the students are divided into groups of approximately 15 each. One staff member is assigned to each group. The groups remain with each other throughout the session. During competitive times, the groups serve as teams.
“Former Vice-President Mul-vey White and Dr. Topping played a vital role in the initiation of this program at our university,” Jim Dennis, director of the Sports Club, said. “We like to feel that we contributed to its widespread acceptance nationally.”
When the federal government began to sponsor this program in conjunction with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, it adopted USC’s format, Dennis said.
After a number of days of practice, the various teams compete against one another. Boys compete against boys and girls against girls. Points are kept throughout the session and at the conclusion, the individual team members of the winning teams each receive a trophy.
In the past, the sports which were most popular were basketball and football among the boys and track and field among the girls.
At the conclusion of the session, an awards picnic is held,
during which the trophies are presented. Each child who participated in the session also receives a certificate of achievement.
Besides the sports activities, the children will have a chance to participate in candy hunts, pie eating contests, and recreational swimming.
They will also see movies from time to time, which serve as supplements to their sports instruction. In addition, the children will hear people from the community talk on drugs or police-community relations. Dan Smith is in charge of this aspect of the session, termed educational components.
The day begins for each of the age groups when they meet on Bovard Field and then go to lunch. The children have either a box lunch or they eat /-\
\ \
/ / /
V \ V / \ / -\
\ / \ Jr \ \
V / /
V \ / t \ / V
/\ \ V /
/ /
\ y \ \ . \
in the Commons Restaurant, ground floor. The rest of their time is spent with games, sports instruction, educational components and competition.
Each participant must have his parents’ consent slip on file with the university. In addition, a record of a recent physical examination must be presented. For those who are unable to provide for a physical, the Student Health Center will perform them.
The size of the program has continued to grow since it was first introduced three years ago. The first year, approximately 200 neighborhood children participated. Last year there were about 350 and this year 400 are expected. More than 100 universities throughout the United States conduct similar programs each summer.
\ /\
' V V V . •I-J^.-I^.-
SELECTING BEST BAT
Children will learn techniques of major sports.